Clement, I agree with your kolasis assessment, but the salvation of all doesn't depend on the eonian turn. Its truth can be demonstrated allowing every instance of "eternal" that scholars past and present use it in the Bible, including in Mat 25:46.You claim Mt.25:46 as a proof text against universalism. I showed 2 separate reasonable universalist interpretations of the text.
Clement, I agree with your kolasis assessment, but the salvation of all doesn't depend on the eonian turn. Its truth can be demonstrated allowing every instance of "eternal" that scholars past and present use it in the Bible, including in Mat 25:46.
I may have overstepped my understanding here...have been reading in the thread sporadically and may have imposed what I felt I saw as the tired, overused aionios defense on Clement. If so, my apologies to you and him (her?). If I can, I'll try to go back and reread to see where I messed up.Dear Bar: Where did you get the idea Clement believes the salvation of all depends on the koine aionios?
I believe I can. They are: much too involved to inject into this thread, would probably be considered taking thread off topic. Also don't have time to start it right now. I did battle with the closed-minded Der Alter on my view of eternal salvation some years ago, and it was like beating on a concrete wall with a marshmallow hammer. To do the topic justice I'll need to start new thread and insist that arguments made be directed entirely and only to the specific view of the salvation of all I provide, which is considerably different than those typically used.Can you be the first to fill in the blanks for the qualification factors of Matt. 25? They are?
But I will address this silliness as soon as any UR-ite shows me one (1) verse where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, speaking says unequivocally that all mankind, righteous, unrighteous, sinner, believer, will be saved no matter what?
To do the topic justice I'll need to start new thread and insist that arguments made be directed entirely and only to the specific view of the salvation of all I provide, which is considerably different than those typically used.
I may have overstepped my understanding here...have been reading in the thread sporadically and may have imposed what I felt I saw as the tired, overused aionios defense on Clement. If so, my apologies to you and him (her?). If I can, I'll try to go back and reread to see where I messed up.
I believe I can. They are: much too involved to inject into this thread, would probably be considered taking thread off topic. Also don't have time to start it right now. I did battle with the closed-minded Der Alter on my view of eternal salvation some years ago, and it was like beating on a concrete wall with a marshmallow hammer. To do the topic justice I'll need to start new thread and insist that arguments made be directed entirely and only to the specific view of the salvation of all I provide, which is considerably different than those typically used.
I did battle with the closed-minded Der Alter on my view of eternal salvation some years ago, and it was like beating on a concrete wall with a marshmallow hammer.
Clement, I agree with your kolasis assessment, but the salvation of all doesn't depend on the eonian turn. Its truth can be demonstrated allowing every instance of "eternal" that scholars past and present use it in the Bible, including in Mat 25:46.
…..According to three irrefutable Jewish sources.
<
…According to three irrefutable Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud,
<RM>Der Alter, the problem with all those verses is, they were all written before Jesus, when people did not believe in an after life, as I understand it anyway. But then why did David say if my soul goes down to hell, you are with me?, if he did not believe in an after life? Was it metaphorical?
Not to debate with myselfbut I guess I am. Just trying to understand. Is it not true that the Jews do not and did not believe in an after life, then or now? I need to do more research!<end>
It is not relevant what the Jews did or did not believe about the after life. If God inspired the scripture and I am absolutely convinced that He did then we should understand/interpret the scripture exactly as they are written.
.....As I understand David there is no place in the entire universe where God's people are separated from Him.
.....Some Jews did not believe in an afterlife, i.e. the Sadduceees did not believe in the resurrection. Others did, before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of eternal, unending fiery punishment and they called it both Ge Hinnom and sheol. See this link.
GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com
The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
…..According to three irrefutable Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia,
I understand that I have to wait until I have a certain number of posts and some other criteria before I can post. I would post under original username but long since forgot what it was for this site. I just posted a paper on Academia.edu that provides the metaphysical prelude to my understanding of how God saves all. When I can start thread will post a link to it on my personal page.Go ahead and start a thread Bar. Those who believe in the salvation of all are all agreed on that outcome but we do have differences on how God accomplishes it.
As for D.A.:Concrete at least deteriorates at the 50 year point.
Lol to the above. Problem is, I almost certainly won't last long enough to do the hammering.A marshmallow hammer will eventually wear out concrete.
Dear Lazarus: do you really expect these wascally wascals so engrossed in damning Abba's broken wrecks in Adam1 to actually respond to us?FineLinen, you seem to be getting the same response to your proposed five-point list as I do with my query "How can Death be destroyed if anyone is still dead and/or in Hell?"
Thank you for this irrelevant opinion about "Origen's Commentary on John" a source you have repeatedly quoted as proof that there is "after aionios" and "beyond aionios." But strangely when it contradicts your UR assumptions/presuppositions you want to rewrite itClementofA said:If it were absurd why do you even bother to respond to it. If aionion meant "eternal" and so does "never perishes", then the author is saying the life is "eternal and eternal",
a useless redundancy.
I don't have a clue what you are talking about here. But let me remind you again I have been speaking English as my native language since FDR was president and I have post graduate studies therefore I do not require explanation or clarification of what plain English words mean.Clem said:The author speaks of "the first life". What is that? According to the translation you posted it "remains" & "perishes", while according to this translation it is "lasting" and
"perishable", so by the word "remains" is not meant, as you implied, something eternal:
Here is the quote from your Heracleon link and what I posted shown together please explain the contradiction you claim to see.Clem said:"The words “shall never thirst again” mean that his life is eternal and never perishes as does the first (life) which the well provides, but rather is lasting. For the Grace and
gift of our Savior cannot be taken away, and is not consumed or destroyed in the one who partakes of it. The first life is perishable." Heracleon - Commentary on the Gospel of John
Compare the translation you posted, to which i've added Heracleon's words in [61]:
"(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it. (61)...the first life perishes..." ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.82).
Sorry, I know some don't like response to multiple posts in one setting but too lazy to do a bunch one after another.
I understand that I have to wait until I have a certain number of posts and some other criteria before I can post. I would post under original username but long since forgot what it was for this site. I just posted a paper on Academia.edu that provides the metaphysical prelude to my understanding of how God saves all. When I can start thread will post a link to it on my personal page.
Lol to the above. Problem is, I almost certainly won't last long enough to do the hammering.
Quite an interesting source. Are you sure you want to rely on this? Here is part of pg 10 and all of pg. 11. The first thing I notice about this page is not one single verse of scripture is quoted.ClementofA said:Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by pages 10-11 of: Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika
Quite an interesting source. Are you sure you want to rely on this?
Thank you for this irrelevant opinion about "Origen's Commentary on John" a source you have repeatedly quoted as proof that there is "after aionios" and "beyond aionios." But strangely when it contradicts your UR assumptions/presuppositions you want to rewrite it
Clem said:
Greek text here:
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Origenes_PG 11-17/Commentarii in evangelium Joannis.pdf
This document is in Greek but it does not contain the words under discussion, i.e. "(19) 'and after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life.
For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.' (Origen's Commentary on John 13:19)."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?